Paul: “Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel”

posted at 1:40 pm on December 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Not long ago, Newt Gingrich got into some trouble for claiming that the Palestinians are an “invented people,” although there is some basis for that statement, as prior to the British Mandate there was no such official designation for “Palestine” — and the British clearly included present-day Jordan as a major part of “Palestine” in the mandate. Another Republican candidate offered a history lesson on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2009, a moment recalled by Jeff Dunetz in this clip from the House floor. In it, we discover that Israel “started” Hamas as a counterweight to Yasser Arafat, or something, and manages to blame the CIA for radicalizing Muslims and the US for supplying weapons and funds that “kill Palestinians”:

This may be why Paul doesn’t get a lot of support from his own party in Iowa or New Hampshire, as Byron York reports today:

In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it’s 85 percent.

So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.

“Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren’t really Republicans but say they’re going to vote in the Republican primary,” explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are “trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme,” says Smith.

So who started Hamas? Was it really Israel? Er … no, not really, and the suggestion that Israel wanted Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO is simply ludicrous. Hamas developed from a network of Muslim Brotherhood charities in Gaza in the mid-1980s. The Muslim Brotherhood was one of the most notorious of anti-Israeli organizations in the region, formed in the 1920s in opposition to the collapse of the Caliphate and the British Mandate that followed. At the founding of Hamas, it called for “jihad” to seize Israel and create an Islamist state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They formed in direct opposition to the PLO (now called Fatah in the Palestinian Authority government), to some extent because Yasser Arafat was negotiating with Israel, albeit in bad faith while trying to drum up financial and political support in the West. Hamas gets its funding from Iran, hardly a disinterested third party in this conflict — and the main engine of radicalizing Muslims, eclipsing the Muslim Brotherhood ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Paul only gets one thing substantially correct in this speech, which is that the US screwed up by pushing for an election in Gaza while Hamas had such a strong hold on the territory. We did warn, however, that we would not work with terrorists in a Gaza government, and after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal in 2005 it would have been difficult to argue against elections in Gaza. “Imposing” democracy in this case ended up backfiring, as it legitimized Hamas to some extent and made it more difficult to fight against their terrorism. But that’s a far cry from claiming that Israel started Hamas, a statement that is so nutty that it should be by itself disqualifying for voters looking to select the next Republican nominee.

Update: A few people have e-mailed me this opinion piece from the WSJ in 2009 as “proof” that corroborates Paul’s claims. It doesn’t back up Paul’s claim that Israel “started” Hamas, and it really doesn’t make the case that Israel encouraged the formation of Hamas, either. The closest it comes is this:

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with “Yassins,” primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.

How did Israel “encourage” Hamas? By keeping tabs on it, as any intel service would have done:

Instead, Israel’s military-led administration in Gaza looked favorably on the paraplegic cleric, who set up a wide network of schools, clinics, a library and kindergartens. Sheikh Yassin formed the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya, which was officially recognized by Israel as a charity and then, in 1979, as an association. Israel also endorsed the establishment of the Islamic University of Gaza, which it now regards as a hotbed of militancy. The university was one of the first targets hit by Israeli warplanes in the recent war.

Brig. General Yosef Kastel, Gaza’s Israeli governor at the time, is too ill to comment, says his wife. But Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, who took over as governor in Gaza in late 1979, says he had no illusions about Sheikh Yassin’s long-term intentions or the perils of political Islam. As Israel’s former military attache in Iran, he’d watched Islamic fervor topple the Shah. However, in Gaza, says Mr. Segev, “our main enemy was Fatah,” and the cleric “was still 100% peaceful” towards Israel. Former officials say Israel was also at the time wary of being viewed as an enemy of Islam.

Mr. Segev says he had regular contact with Sheikh Yassin, in part to keep an eye on him. He visited his mosque and met the cleric around a dozen times. It was illegal at the time for Israelis to meet anyone from the PLO. Mr. Segev later arranged for the cleric to be taken to Israel for hospital treatment. “We had no problems with him,” he says.

In other words, people want to “credit” Israel for creating Hamas because they didn’t oppose the establishment of (then) non-violent social charities. Later, in 1987, the Muslim Brotherhood formed these charities into Hamas, which adopted violent jihad and the destruction of Israel as the key goals of its charter. Israel didn’t stop it and continued for a brief time to maintain its contacts with the group until it launched an intifada, but that’s not the same thing as “creating Hamas,” or even “encouraging Hamas.”

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I am taking sides and picking who the bad guys are and who the good guys are, but I’m looking at this more from the angle of being a United States citizen, an American, and I think resolutions like this really do great harm to us. In many ways what is happening in the Middle East, and in particular with Gaza right now, we have some moral responsibility for both sides, because we provide help in funding for both Arab nations and Israel. And so we definitely have a moral responsibility. And especially now today, the weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons and American funds essentially are being used for this.

But there is a political liability which I think is something that we fail to look at because too often there is so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn’t be involved in. Hamas, if you look at the history, you will find that Hamas was encouraged and actually started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasir Arafat. You say, Well, yeah, it was better then and served its purpose, but we didn’t want Hamas to do this. So then we, as Americans, say, Well, we have such a good system;
we’re going to impose this on the world. We’re going to invade Iraq and teach people how to be democrats. We want free elections. So we encouraged the Palestinians to have a free election. They do, and they elect Hamas.

So we first, indirectly and directly through Israel, helped establish Hamas. Then we have an election where Hamas becomes dominant then we have to kill them. It just doesn’t make sense. During the 1980s, we were allied with Osama bin Laden and we were contending with the Soviets. It was at that time our CIA thought it was good if we radicalize the Muslim world. So we finance the Madrassas school to radicalize the Muslims in order to compete with the Soviets. There is too much blowback.

There are a lot of reasons why we should oppose this resolution. It’s not in the interest of the United States, it is not in the interest of Israel either. I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or U.S. interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback
might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?

As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza–a cruel act of war–and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month. There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.

Madam Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become further involved in this conflict, promising “vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Hello…”authorized to “execute the laws of the Union”. The act itself states that the state government is allowed to use federal recourses to maintain “law and order”. Yeah, Alex Jones let you and the rest of his clinical paranoiac audience down.
Regardless, this little factoid is irrelevant to you comparing our troops actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to the actions of the Nazis.

V7_Sport on December 27, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Including going door-to-door to take away registered and COMPLETELY legal firearms? Say what? V7 even you despite your slavish defense of all things military, know that is fundamentally wrong.

Transcript of Ron Paul on the Imus show: “Israel actions are horrible, atrocious”

“They are starving people and keeping them in concentration camps”

“This is a perfect opportunity to say, Israel, your on your own, we’re no longer backing you up” — in reference to the Mavi Marmara,a Turkish ship with members of a US designated terrorist group affiliated with Hamas, the IHH ,trying to break Israels naval blockade

This is part of Paul’s “Blowback theory” in which Evil actions by Hamas and/or Al-Qaeda are all due to the actions of the US/Israel.

He will tell any lie, omit any history he has to and hold to his theory and isolationist ideology.

jp on December 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I think you, and the rest of the “loons” on this site don’t understand his point.

His point is simply to identify blow back from foreign intervention. Because, often when blow back occurs the nation which was attacked has not been made aware of the policies that lead to the attack so they just assume it’s because “they’re evil”. I see this INSANITY on this site continually. They do suicide terrorism because of their faith. Bullshit. The number one cause of suicide terrorism is occupation and Paul thinks the U.S. would be safer if we stopped motivating acts of terror by getting involved in these conflicts overseas.

Where’s the Constitutional authority for the federal government steal from its citizens in order to go to war and force democracy on other nations?

Also, in the post, the writer suggests that only half of Paul’s supporters self-identify themselves as Republican. So almost half of his supporters are independents and Democrats? Then why would Paul not stand the best chance against Obama if he would pull so many Democrats and indies?

Now, I know you war mongering loons – who want war with anyone, anywhere and for any excuse won’t vote for Paul anyway but this is just a point I think you loons need to get through your thick skull. Before you vote for Obama over Paul, thus cementing my view that you guys are just progressives.

By the way; I love how you guys call Paul and his policies crazy. Meanwhile, today we can see the results of your policies. It’s crazy to intervene into the middle east in order to create a more stable region. All that’s happened is the region is more stable and Iraq is on the verge of turning into exactly what you hate. All your damn intervention has not and will not ever work and we have the EVIDENCE to prove it.

Paul points out how your freaking interventions have failed and somehow this makes him the loon? Get a freaking mirror. Your intervention into the economy to save capitalism did not work. Your intervention into the middle east has not worked. Your intervention into private lives to stop consenting adults to stop using drugs has not worked and has only succeeded in giving us the largest prison population in the history of the world. Why don’t you guys do us all a favor and stop talking about the constitution and one day actually FOLLOW THE FREAKING THING?

There is no United States as people think of it. It’s just a puppet in the Jews’ hands. It’s a plaything for the Jews. . . The US government and American Jewry are virtually interchangeable. . . They’re lying bastards. Jews were always lying bastards throughout their history. They’re a filthy, dirty, disgusting, vile, criminal people. . . They’re just unbelievably wicked bastards.

Including going door-to-door to take away registered and COMPLETELY legal firearms? Say what? V7 even you despite your slavish defense of all things military, know that is fundamentally wrong.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I was/am outraged by that action. It never should have happened, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the National Guard can be dispatched by a state’s governor, in a disaster, to maintain law and order. Clearly, based on the passage from the constitution that you quoted, they can….

Including going door-to-door to take away registered and COMPLETELY legal firearms? Say what? V7 even you despite your slavish defense of all things military, know that is fundamentally wrong.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Again, the last time that you called our troops Nazis it was referring to their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and their potential actions in Iran. Now you are trying to equate them with Nazis because they confiscated guns in New Orleans. (And your edited youtube report said nothing about “registered and COMPLETELY legal” so again, you are being disingenuous. Do yourself and the people you subject your clinical paranoia to a favor and get your news from somewhere else other then youtube)
Sounds like you are real pro-military…entirely in keeping with the other paulbots.

Pitchforker is giving a perfect example of why Paul supporters are called Paulnuts. They share that wonderful characteristic with their beloved leader.

luckedout26 on December 27, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Look, there are folks who insist that Ron Paul is equivalent to Christ in many regards. I take no such stance. I simply see him as the best, less tainted candidate of an unspectacular bunch.

I like the fact that he will attempt to cut 1 trillion dollars out of the bloated budget. Secondly, I also like the fact that he hasn’t wavered with his quirky stances to garner popularity. The beltway and our country has been ravaged by this so-called conventional wisdom mentality.
- Financing homes for individuals without the capacity to meet their mortgages.
- Running deficits primarily backed by money creation.
- Promoting democracy in places in which the prevailing culture is diametrically opposed to such ideas.

Until a few years ago, that was mainstream canon that was not be challenged. So much for conventional wisdom, eh?

Again, the last time that you called our troops Nazis it was referring to their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and their potential actions in Iran. Now you are trying to equate them with Nazis because they confiscated guns in New Orleans. (And your edited youtube report said nothing about “registered and COMPLETELY legal” so again, you are being disingenuous. Do yourself and the people you subject your clinical paranoia to a favor and get your news from somewhere else other then youtube)
Sounds like you are real pro-military…entirely in keeping with the other paulbots.

V7_Sport on December 27, 2011 at 3:06 PM

I never said they were Nazis in relation to their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. To even infer such allegations, would to allege that I stated that they were partaking in some sort of ethnic genocide, when that isn’t the case.

Again, the last time that you called our troops Nazis it was referring to their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and their potential actions in Iran. Now you are trying to equate them with Nazis because they confiscated guns in New Orleans. (And your edited youtube report said nothing about “registered and COMPLETELY legal” so again, you are being disingenuous. Do yourself and the people you subject your clinical paranoia to a favor and get your news from somewhere else other then youtube)
Sounds like you are real pro-military…entirely in keeping with the other paulbots.

Say what? V7 even you despite your slavish defense of all things military, know that is fundamentally wrong.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM

By the way, I volunteered to fly supplies into New Orleans after Katrina and it was a mess.
What I observed was that the military was the most functional part of the recovery system. I didn’t see any Nazis, just a bunch of guys trying to make a bad situation better.

By the way, I volunteered to fly supplies into New Orleans after Katrina and it was a mess.
What I observed was that the military was the most functional part of the recovery system. I didn’t see any Nazis, just a bunch of guys trying to make a bad situation better.

V7_Sport on December 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM

I’m not questioning their efficiency and know how. I’m just questioning who the hell gave orders to National Guardsman to disarm U.S. citizens with legally registered firearms. I have no problem with the military at the ground level. They have a thankless job rife with danger.

He didn’t write those newsletters! Well, he didn’t write all of them. Well, they were only published under his name for over a decade. You can’t expect the guy who was editor of the newsletters to know whats in them, can you? Of course not…could happen to anyone, really. Anyway, he took responsibility for them, even though he also hasn’t, depending on the year and season. And who can blame the guy for profiting from something he had no idea about? See, he said he’d like to see some of that money. All the proof I need. Any financial records saying otherwise are probably from some dirty…well, anyway. I know there is video of him talking about and praising the Newsletters but who are you going to believe? Ron Paul now or Ron Paul then? All of these are just details, really. Can’t we get back to the work at hand?

He has never actually came out and blamed America for anything, except of course when he has. Its only been a few times though, honest. Everyone has a little bit of ‘Hate America’ in them, amIright? If you’re being intellectually honest, of course you do!

He has never voted for one earmark – ever! True story! I know he put them in all those bills and requested over $30BILLION dollars of them over the years… Again, just details. But he never voted for them. Yeah, he got them anyway and accepted the money, sure. Just like any TRUE, PRINCIPLED, CONSERVATIVE, AMERICA LOVING POLITICIAN WOULD DO! But he never voted for them – aren’t you listening to me?

Of course he wants other investigations into 9/11. Who wouldn’t? Who’s afraid of simply asking questions? No one who’s after TRUTH, that’s for sure – or who isn’t controlled by the Jews in the MSM, AMIRIGHT *nudge*?! The 9/11 Commission report was a sham anyway. You know who was on the committee don’t you? Jews, that’s who. It was the Mossad after all that brought down the Twin Towers. Although it could have been rogue elements of the CIA, probably working with those dirty Jews but that’s why he says we need another investigation. Any real American would want the truth (about those dirty Jews), *wink*!

As far as his huge support from racists and white supremacists and anti-semites, hey! I never hear anyone on Hot Gas (pffft) writing posts about our current Presidents associations with the Black Panthers and folks like Jeremiah Wright and America haters like Bill Ayers or his wife… What? Really? That many? For years?

Oh, and before anyone brings up a list of Islamic related terror attacks since 9/11, just remember: All of them were our fault. Yep. Every. Single.One. Blowback donchaknow…

Whatever man, your just deflecting now, aren’t you. Typical of you non-intellectual neo-con warmongers who hate the Constitution and are really stooges of the elitist Zionists…btw, have you ever heard of the Bilderbergers? Bohemian Grove? I know this great radio guy you should listen to, his name is Alex Jones. If he’s not your cup of tea there’s another guy, a great guy, Lew Rockwell? Or if you want the real truth, head over to this website, its for this group called Stromfront… Yeah, they love him.

They do suicide terrorism because of their faith. Bullshit. The number one cause of suicide terrorism is occupation.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Who is occupying Pakistan when one Muslim gang there blows up another?

Same with Iraq. Why are the Sunnis blowing up Shi’ites, and vice versa? Nothing to do with their faith?

Who is occupying India when a Muslim gang there blows up Hindus, etc?

Who is occupying Thailand when Muslims there blow up Buddhists?

Or Muslim Boko Haram blowing up Christian churches in Africa?

By your logic, we should begin suicide bombings in all of the former Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, pagan, animist and Buddhist lands now “occupied” by Muslims… like Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan (and all the other -stans) et al?

I imagine every normal person realizes by now that Paul is truly “certifiable”, i.e. batwhit insane.
whatcat on December 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM

We’ve been following YOUR foreign policy and all we have is chaos and Iran “trying to go nuclear” in the middle east and yet you want largely the same policies? That’s the definition of insanity.
Nice try.
fatlibertarianinokc on December 27, 2011 at 3:17 PM

So, if your ally makes any kind of a mistake, then you should withdraw.

One thing you can say for Paul is that he’s consistent — he even said the same when we went in and killed bin Ladin.

Somehow, I get the feeling that if Paul, instead of FDR, had been President at the outset of WWII, we’d have diplomatic relations with the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, and Germany would indeed be Judenrein.

Who is occupying Pakistan when one Muslim gang there blows up another?

Same with Iraq. Why are the Sunnis blowing up Shi’ites, and vice versa? Nothing to do with their faith?

Who is occupying India when a Muslim gang there blows up Hindus, etc?

Who is occupying Thailand when Muslims there blow up Buddhists?

Or Muslim Boko Haram blowing up Christian churches in Africa?

By your logic, we should begin suicide bombings in all of the former Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, pagan, animist and Buddhist lands now “occupied” by Muslims… like Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan (and all the other -stans) et al?

What amazes me is why is he still in the race, RNC should ask him to drop immediately, but no he is the front runner and Perry just passed by a rock that was painted over and he was called racist. Were is the GOP? are they still relevent? and by the way Ron Paul is looking more and more like Pinnoccio.

I guess it’s comforting to know that if Ron Paul was president, the attacks of 9-11 would seem like just a firecracker.

The man is stupid. He keeps himself ignorant regarding foreign affairs in order to keep spouting his nonsense.

Anyone who actually thinks that Muslims attacked us on 9-11 because of us “intervening” somewhere, somehow, needs to explain to me why Muslims have been trying to take over the west for well over 1000 years, before America or the State of Israel existed.

Anyone who actually thinks that Muslims attacked us on 9-11 because of us “intervening” somewhere, somehow, needs to explain to me why Muslims have been trying to take over the west for well over 1000 years, before America or the State of Israel existed.

There is a wiser way to combat & contain them and it doesn’t include spending billions of dollars a day.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 3:31 PM

and what is that “wiser” way? waht does ron suggest we do? he’s been in congress for many many years and no one, absolutely no one takes him seriously. he hasnt been able to get any traction but somehow you and the other paulnuts think he can suddenly turn things around if he is elected president?

Not if you place foreign policy way down the list like I do. The terrorists could have not done the damage that Ben Bernanke and his ilk have orchestrated. Not even close.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 3:23 PM

When you go fill up your automobile with gasoline refined from middle east oil, at a price a citizen of any other nation would envy you the cost, just keep that thought in mind.

When you fire up the fuel oil furnace in your house, because you might freeze to death if you didn’t, just keep that thought in mind.

[The above is just one raw material -- oil -- which drives our foreign policy. It's also the reason bin Ladin claims to have been waging war on the US -- because we actually walked upon the ground of Saudi Arabia -- part of the Ummah.]

But you Paulnuts’ entire rationale for justifying Ron Paul’s foreign policy just got destroyed by profitbeard, and you completely ignored that fact.

Spliff Menendez on December 27, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Why do you speak to me like I’m part of a collective? Secondly, I’m not of the school that blowback is the end-all, be-all catalyst for Muslim extremism. It certainly is a primary factor as attested by OBL’s declaration. But their rigid faith plays a primary role as well.

Anyone who actually thinks that Muslims attacked us on 9-11 because of us “intervening” somewhere, somehow, needs to explain to me why Muslims have been trying to take over the west for well over 1000 years, before America or the State of Israel existed.

Spliff Menendez on December 27, 2011 at 3:29 PM

This! Why is it Paul and his followers seem to think the history of the Middle East began in the 1940s?

It certainly is a primary factor as attested by OBL’s declaration. But their rigid faith plays a primary role as well.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Whoa, wait a minute? Are you saying we should now believe what OBL said? You can’t be that naive. The pig used any excuse to further his cause. Even if we had never supported Israel or intervened in any way he would have found some other excuse to further a jihad that has existed for centuries.

Paul is merely repeating baseless claims made by professional Anti-Israel propagandists.

The truth is, before Oslo, Israeli groups were pushing to provide philanthropic aid to Palestinians when it was literally still ILLEGAL in Israel to meet with the PLO. Idiots in the government thought it would be safe to turn to religiously focused Palestinian groups, like Hamas, to:

1) Gain influence and win favor with the Muslim street, by naively, appealing to some sense of Abrahamic spiritual respect, or some such fantasy.

2) To offset the Marxist PLO control on the region, while they were banished to Tunisia.

3) Help provide Palestinians with some community infrastructure, that would keep them off the streets, where they were being organized to throw rocks as part of an “intifada”.

The problem: Both the PLO and Hamas stem from the same movements, and all they do is play good cop/bad cop, so wether it’s under a Pan-Arabism or Pan-Islamism matters very little,….it’s about wiping all the Jews out.

What Paul is doing is a manner of turnspeak, blaming the victims and labeling them the aggressors. It was perfected with Holocaust revisionism, where blame is placed on Jews, specifically Zionist Jews, who are likened to Nazis, or dubbed “collaborators”. The sad irony being that it was the Muslim Brotherhood types who literally collaborated with Nazis, and Black September was organized in part by Nazis who escaped to the Middle East. All of this is well documented, but rarely discussed.

Anyone who actually thinks that Muslims attacked us on 9-11 because of us “intervening” somewhere, somehow, needs to explain to me why Muslims have been trying to take over the west for well over 1000 years, before America or the State of Israel existed.
Spliff Menendez on December 27, 2011 at 3:29 PM

This! Why is it Paul and his followers seem to think the history of the Middle East began in the 1940s?
Deanna on December 27, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Well, Paul is insane abd there’s just no accounting for batwhit crazy. But his devotees can only best be compared to the followers of Kim Jong Il.

Whoa, wait a minute? Are you saying we should now believe what OBL said? You can’t be that naive. The pig used any excuse to further his cause. Even if we had never supported Israel or intervened in any way he would have found some other excuse to further a jihad that has existed for centuries.

Deanna on December 27, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Well, it was a legitimate excuse I’m sorry to say. He was incensed over a heavy U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. While I’m no crazed jihadist, if I saw Chinese troops around my neighborhood I wouldn’t be too amused either.

Not all Ron Paul supporters are monolithic in their views. It is actually quite diverse.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Lets see, Blames the USA for the actions of islamists (blowback) … Check
Speaks pejoratively of the US military (Nazis)… Check
Believes in conspiracy theories, (the USA let 9/11 happen, and that it might have been “rouge CIA or the Mossad”) Check.
Yeah, you fit in with the monolithic idiocy.

I’d like or fan you if I could but Hot Air comment section is programming from 1996. It amazes me how the neocon right are such foaming at the mouth ideologues that they now sound exactly like the lunatic left (go visit any Huffington Post article smearing Paul and look at the comment section). If they don’t like someone or disagree with their policies, they libel, smear, attack, accuse, name call, or any possible way to denigrate one man’s character who is challenging the status quo of the Republican establishment.

This website is the worst. Ed Morrisey and Allahpundit have been working overtime to write hit pieces on him now that he might win the Iowa caucus. Over and over again we are told that the only choice is Romney and you better step in line. I’m tired of being told what to do by hack political pundits who care not to think things through. They are emotional reactionaries. Who needs the left as enemies when you have the neocon right bringing out the long knives to destroy one of the country’s last chances to return to Constitutional government? All we have gotten from our neocon leadership is concession after concession to the progressive globalist left. The racism meme is a great example of the establishment right doing their best impression of leftists. I will not come in the defense of neocons when their brothers on the left turn around and start hurling racist accusations against them. It’s gotten to the point of absurdity.

This! Why is it Paul and his followers seem to think the history of the Middle East began in the 1940s?
Deanna on December 27, 2011 at 3:40 P

That view IS simplistic, I’ll grant you.

What happened is that after Western civilization really took off, the M.E. faded into being a sandy backwater with no money or power to threaten much of anyone. But…then we suddenly decided we ‘needed’ cheap gas for everyone, his brother, his cousin and his dog. And the Bronze-Age ignoramuses just happened to be squatting on a pile of it.

In another age we’d have simply treated them like the American Indians and just taken their resources outright. But instead we decided to start pouring more money into their cr@psack nations than they’d seen since before the time of Christ, and hey presto, they’re both relevant and a threat once again.

“Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the region and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”

Of course, it’s true. You don’t thrust a stick in a hornet’s nest. They are already a little off-kilter with their Koran obsession and then you start rigging their elections, if not disposing of their leaders…

How many hours in the air are you going to make the helicopters fly over a gigantic, hostile land mass? How many night time air to air refueling are you going to make them undertake and still expect them to get in undetected? What size of force are you going to use knowing that back up options are almost non existent?
It’s fun to play with other peoples lives in fantasy land, huh? Then again, with the contempt you have shown them this might just be a way of getting rid of a bunch of tin soldiers…

How many hours in the air are you going to make the helicopters fly over a gigantic, hostile land mass? How many night time air to air refueling are you going to make them undertake and still expect them to get in undetected? What size of force are you going to use knowing that back up options are almost non existent?
It’s fun to play with other peoples lives in fantasy land, huh? Then again, with the contempt you have shown them this might just be a way of getting rid of a bunch of tin soldiers…

V7_Sport on December 27, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Depends on the threat assessment or the mission objective. Secondly, from my perspective the frequency of land-bound incursions would diminish from a carrier group. We’re spending 200 million dollars a day in Afghanistan.

Do yourselves a favour and read this from Robert Spencer regarding the “invented Palestinian people”:~

Gingrich is right in this. PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said this in 1977:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

The Palestinian nation was invented as a tool of the jihad against Israel. Instead of tiny Israel surrounded by huge and hostile Arab states, the picture suddenly changed to the powerful Israeli war machine victimizing an even tinier people.

Not appeasement. We need to strengthen the homeland. Expel students of questionable ties from our universities. Revoke visas. Throw up a moratorium on immigration from terrorist harboring countries.

On the military side, we need to prepare to engage an unconventional enemy with smaller, specialized units. We don’t need to maintain military presence of that size land-bound. It’s counterproductive.

Pitchforker on December 27, 2011 at 3:44 PM

First paragraph sounds eerily familiar:

7. The state insure that every citizen lives decently and earns his livelihood. If it is impossible to provide food for the whole population, then aliens must be expelled.
8. No further immigration of non-Germans. Any non-German who arrived after August 2, 1914, shall leave immediately.
9. A thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The science of citizenship shall be taught from the beginning.

Second paragraph seems to have Paul talking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously — if it’s Paul and not you. After all, didn’t Paul excoriate Obama over his use of special forces (the “smaller, specialized units” of which you speak) in the killing of bin Laden.

You have no idea what you are talking about. None.
Te cavalier way in which you would compound the risk our fighting men have to face in order to protect your ungrateful life is telling.

V7_Sport on December 27, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I’m not acting cavalier. 200 million per day isn’t acceptable. 73 billion annually roughly. It has to be scaled down. Elements of the operation need to be pared down and if this makes me appear heartless so be it. I think when approaching expenditures, we cannot leave any stone untouched. I am as indifferent to military spending, which currently eclipses an astounding 1 trillion as I am to food stamps.

The 9/11 report and the C.I.A stated that the motivations for the attack was,

U.S troops on Holy Land in Saudi Arabia, supporting dictators,

being heavily bias towards Israel.Bombing Iraq for 10yrs,sanctions leading to 500,000 children to die,that M.Albright said was worth it.
The report also recognised blowback.
Looking for the motive doesn’t mean you justify it.

Police look for motive that doesn’t mean they agree with the murder

They chose the Pentagon and WTC to attack U.S military and financial control in the World.

So the WSJ article doesn’t support Paul’s claim that Israel “started” Hamas, despite the fact that Avner Cohen states that “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.” And the WSJ article really doesn’t make the case that Israel encouraged the formation of Hamas, except for the several paragraphs that do; the article certainly does not affirm Paul’s ludicrous claim that Israel wanted Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO, except for statements like this one: “Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas.”

That’s just the WSJ article. There is a lot more out there. It took me just 5 minutes. Paul gave that speech before Congress. Was he objected to, shouted down, contradicted, scolded, censured for telling outrageous lies? Nope, because while his fellow Congressmen may have objected to his conclusions, they agreed with his premises.

Keep it up, Ed. After Obama is re-elected and nobody pays attention to Hot Air anymore because it has become the right-wing version of Daily Kos, you can get that cushy job at the NYT. You’ll fit right in.

That’s just the WSJ article. There is a lot more out there. It took me just 5 minutes. Paul gave that speech before Congress. Was he objected to, shouted down, contradicted, scolded, censured for telling outrageous lies? Nope, because while his fellow Congressmen may have objected to his conclusions, they agreed with his premises.

Mr. Arkadin on December 27, 2011 at 4:30 PM

You make alot of assumptions. First the brief look we saw revealed a somewhat empty hall. Not unusual, many Congressmen give speeches to an empty hall. Second, I heard no applause or yay or ‘that’s telling it like it is’ either. Nor did I hear any speeches of support. Third, maybe they’re so used to what he has to say and heard it so often, they ignore him. See, I can make assumptions too.

We’ve been following YOUR foreign policy and all we have is chaos and Iran “trying to go nuclear” in the middle east and yet you want largely the same policies? That’s the definition of insanity.

Nice try.

fatlibertarianinokc

If we followed Paul and YOUR nut job foreign policy, Iran and most of the rest of the Middle East would have had nukes decades ago, we would have lost at least one American city to a nuclear attack by now, Israel and half the Middle East would be gone, and oil would probably be $500 a barrel, or higher.

The number one cause of suicide terrorism is occupation and Paul thinks the U.S. would be safer if we stopped motivating acts of terror by getting involved in these conflicts overseas.

Yep, that suicide attack against Iraqis in Iraq a few days ago was because Iraq is occupying Iraq, lol.

Next up….Ron Paul and his nut job brigade say women who wear short skirts are responsible for rape, and banks are responsible for bank robbers, lol.

That’s just the WSJ article. There is a lot more out there. It took me just 5 minutes. Paul gave that speech before Congress. Was he objected to, shouted down, contradicted, scolded, censured for telling outrageous lies? Nope, because while his fellow Congressmen may have objected to his conclusions, they agreed with his premises.

Mr. Arkadin on December 27, 2011 at 4:30 PM

I guess you don’t realize there are rules in the House where people who aren’t rabid democrats don’t jump up and start screaming Objections. Your logic is also lacking in this idea that Isreal Created Hammas which isn’t true. In Fact Israel followed the policy that Fabled Hero Ron Paul suggested and didn’t intervene thus allowing the emergence of Hammas.

Every time the Fabled Hero Ron Paul gets challenged by using what he has said in the past he and his supporters are quick to pretend that words don’t mean things much like the worst of the democrats do. He is wrong and wrong headed when he does his moral equivalence crap.

I am looking to see if you objected to anything on the internet as obviously the new standard is if you don’t cry outrage you support whatever someone does. My My My How guilty you are by my 5 minutes of active searching.